toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RFE: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware
by Jeffrey Krueger 16 Sep '00

16 Sep '00

I'd like to propose an RFE and see what everyone else things about it. If everyone would just add their comments on, that would be great. I suppose this is an RFC for an RFE. =) Once we all feel comfortable with the RFE, it would be great if we could all forward it up our sales/support channels. Something tells me we aren't the only customer who would like to see this feature. =) -- Jeff ***************************************************************************** RFE: Network boot capability in NetApp firmware WHAT: ===== Add the ability to boot the OS from the network using a command such as "boot net" from the filer firmware "ok>" prompt. WHY: ==== Current booting options are from floppy disk or from SCSI/FC-AL primary storage. Adding the ability to do this over the network from a BOOTP/TFTP server would allow: 1) Quicker/easier ONTAP upgrades and repairs 2) Ease of use in a lab environment Quicker/easier ONTAP upgrades and repairs: ------------------------------------------ Currently, upgrading between some major OS releases requires booting at least once from floppies. Considering that with ONTAP 6.0 three floppies are necessary, it is extremely difficult for one person to simultaneously upgrade many machines in one physical location and impossible to upgrade machines in different physical locations. Additionally, when a NetApp has a non-bootable root volume due to corruption or less than n-1 disks visible, the only option is to boot with a floppy. This means downtime until someone can build the correct boot disks to resolve the problem and physically reach the machine with those floppies. Even in a single building this process can take several minutes. On a large campus, a trip to the filer could take up to an hour, and for remote sites it could be days. With network booting, the new OS image could be put into place and several machines in any location can be upgraded in lockstep simply by accessing the serial console and executing "boot net" on each one. NetApp advertises 5 minute downtime for upgrades which is true in the single-filer environment. Any customer with 30+ filers in more than one location knows that a full production upgrade can take much longer. Repairing a machine would be much easier with Network boot since disks would not have to be built, yet the filer could be booted from any image necessary without anyone physically traveling to the machine. Network booting also removes the risk of having built a bad floppy which occurs frequently. Ease of use in a lab environment: --------------------------------- Our lab environment is also difficult to manage with the current set of boot options. We run several variants of ONTAP in the lab including one or two versions that are currently in production for testing new hardware and configuration changes and many new versions for testing new hardware and new features. To manage this, we do a boot from floppy and menu choice #4, initialize all disks, to two NetApp hard drives for each OS. This approach has many disadvantages including a massive consumption of hard drives in our lab, the tedious and time consuming process of initialize and setting up a new filer, and the maintenance of configuration across several different OS's on the same machine. With network booting we would not have to waste a pair of disks ONTAP for each new ONTAP version we test - a single pair will do. The disk initialization process would only have to be executed once instead of once per ONTAP version. Finally, we could manage one set of configuration files for all different versions. Granted, some major OS versions have incompatible WAFL formats and configuration files; however, maintaining a different set of disks between major releases is much easier than doing it between each release, no matter how minor. HOW: ==== We'll leave the implementation up to Network Appliance; however, we suggest that they use standards based ways of doing this. Filer IP resolution could be done using RARP/BOOTP and/or DHCP. The former are probably easier and are fairly standard for "in-firmware" address resolution. DHCP is probably more code to write, but might be necessary for NT-only customers. For boot-file transmition, TFTP would work just fine and servers are available for both UNIX and NT.

6 8

RE: RFE: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware
by Mike Sphar 16 Sep '00

16 Sep '00

Not that I don't think having the option of booting from network is a good idea, but are people really booting from their floppies that often? Of the three filers I have in production, the only time I've ever had to boot them from floppies was during initial install and for firmware upgrades. I haven't booted off floppy for an OnTap upgrade in a long time, in fact I can't remember ever doing it, though I may have with much earlier versions. One of the things I love most about the filers is being able to do a live OS upgrade, with only a very few minutes of downtime for the reboot afterwards. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Hal Siegel [mailto:hal.siegel@amd.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 7:25 AM To: Jeffrey Krueger Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: RFE: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jeffrey Krueger wrote: > RFE: Network boot capability in NetApp firmware > > WHAT: > ===== > Add the ability to boot the OS from the network using a command such > as "boot net" from the filer firmware "ok>" prompt. I'll agree with you on that concept. I've also been trying to convince Netapp that they need to change "boot from floppy" to "boot from CD" ever since the boot disk became two disks. (heck, I still have some floppies floating around somewhere from the days that the entire OnTap OS fit on a 3.5" ...) Perhaps we should be requesting both network *and* CD boot capabilities. Hal Siegel _---_ / Senior Systems Engineer(ing) YY()))))\ /| Texas Microprocessor Division (@@) )))))/ Advanced Micro Devices /_/\__/__/ hal(a)beast.amd.com mm mm

4 3

RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ...
by Yee, Steven 15 Sep '00

15 Sep '00

Sorry about that folks, d*mn outlook address book. steve. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yee, Steven > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:12 PM > To: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Cc: Yee, Steven; Klinkner, Steve; Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > everything is correct (the same) EXCEPT ... > can you sync to the current change 78761 (that was our last checkin > on filerview/main) > > thanks, > > steve. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:05 PM > To: Yee, Steven > Cc: Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > Before I branch the new filerview, could you confirm (or deny): > > the name of the codeline: filerview:Rvb > the owner of the codeline: sdy > is this codeline frozen or open? [open] > the parent branch: [filerview:main] > change level or time at which you wish the branch to be sync'd: same as > Rvb ? > > thanks, > > -Mujtaba > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yee, Steven > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:40 AM > To: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Cc: Yee, Steven; Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > also branch the filerview tree for VB too ?? > > thanks, > > steve. >

2 1

RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ...
by Ghouse, Mujtaba 15 Sep '00

15 Sep '00

//depot/prod/filerview/Rvb is available for check-ins -Mujtaba > -----Original Message----- > From: Yee, Steven > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:12 PM > To: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Cc: Yee, Steven; Klinkner, Steve; Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > everything is correct (the same) EXCEPT ... > can you sync to the current change 78761 (that was our last checkin > on filerview/main) > > thanks, > > steve. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:05 PM > To: Yee, Steven > Cc: Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > Before I branch the new filerview, could you confirm (or deny): > > the name of the codeline: filerview:Rvb > the owner of the codeline: sdy > is this codeline frozen or open? [open] > the parent branch: [filerview:main] > change level or time at which you wish the branch to be sync'd: same as > Rvb ? > > thanks, > > -Mujtaba > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yee, Steven > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:40 AM > To: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Cc: Yee, Steven; Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > also branch the filerview tree for VB too ?? > > thanks, > > steve. >

1 0

RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ...
by Yee, Steven 15 Sep '00

15 Sep '00

everything is correct (the same) EXCEPT ... can you sync to the current change 78761 (that was our last checkin on filerview/main) thanks, steve. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:05 PM > To: Yee, Steven > Cc: Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: RE: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > Before I branch the new filerview, could you confirm (or deny): > > the name of the codeline: filerview:Rvb > the owner of the codeline: sdy > is this codeline frozen or open? [open] > the parent branch: [filerview:main] > change level or time at which you wish the branch to be sync'd: same as Rvb ? > > thanks, > > -Mujtaba > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yee, Steven > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:40 AM > To: Ghouse, Mujtaba > Cc: Yee, Steven; Klinkner, Steve; Thompson, Tim > Subject: After branching ONTAP/VB can you ... > > also branch the filerview tree for VB too ?? > > thanks, > > steve. >

1 0

RE: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware
by Bokkelkamp Ernst SBS IP 17 M 1 15 Sep '00

15 Sep '00

http://www.nts.com See Shadow IPserver, it's also (another type of) appliance in the OpenServer version. Bye Ernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 2:12 PM > To: chris_good(a)webtop.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware > > > I understood and agree with the original RFE but doing it > > both ways round would be extremely neat and elegant. A cluster > > could even do resiliant dhcpd which is a pain to do conventionally[*]. > > I think if you want a DHCPD server you need another appliance. :) > Something to do all your naming services too... > > Bruce >

1 0

RE: Network boot capability in NetApp firmware
by Mohler, Anissa 15 Sep '00

15 Sep '00

Jeff, There is an existing RFE for this capability - the RFE # is 20166. The description is not yet available on the NOW site... you can track this RFE using BugWatcher. For those that are not familiar with BugWatcher: Go to the NOW site http://now.netapp.com/ Click on Knowledge Center Click on Access Software Bug Tools Click on Bug Finder and put in the id 20166 Then at the bottom of the next page you will be able to select BugWatcher You will be notified when the bug is fixed (or if the RFE is completed) by e-mail. I've added your description to the RFE as well... Thank you! :-----Original Message----- :From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] :Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:11 PM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: RFE: Network boot capavility in NetApp firmware : : :I'd like to propose an RFE and see what everyone else things :about it. If everyone would just add their comments on, that would be :great. I suppose this is an RFC for an RFE. =) : :Once we all feel comfortable with the RFE, it would be great :if we could all forward it up our sales/support channels. Something tells :me we aren't the only customer who would like to see this feature. =) : :-- Jeff : : :*************************************************************** :************** :RFE: Network boot capability in NetApp firmware : :WHAT: :===== :Add the ability to boot the OS from the network using a command such :as "boot net" from the filer firmware "ok>" prompt. : :WHY: :==== :Current booting options are from floppy disk or from SCSI/FC-AL primary :storage. Adding the ability to do this over the network from :a BOOTP/TFTP :server would allow: : : 1) Quicker/easier ONTAP upgrades and repairs : 2) Ease of use in a lab environment : :Quicker/easier ONTAP upgrades and repairs: :------------------------------------------ :Currently, upgrading between some major OS releases requires booting at :least once from floppies. Considering that with ONTAP 6.0 :three floppies :are necessary, it is extremely difficult for one person to :simultaneously :upgrade many machines in one physical location and impossible :to upgrade :machines in different physical locations. Additionally, when :a NetApp has :a non-bootable root volume due to corruption or less than n-1 disks :visible, the only option is to boot with a floppy. This means downtime :until someone can build the correct boot disks to resolve the :problem and :physically reach the machine with those floppies. Even in a single :building this process can take several minutes. On a large :campus, a trip :to the filer could take up to an hour, and for remote sites it could be :days. : :With network booting, the new OS image could be put into place :and several :machines in any location can be upgraded in lockstep simply by :accessing :the serial console and executing "boot net" on each one. :NetApp advertises :5 minute downtime for upgrades which is true in the single-filer :environment. Any customer with 30+ filers in more than one :location knows :that a full production upgrade can take much longer. :Repairing a machine :would be much easier with Network boot since disks would not have to be :built, yet the filer could be booted from any image necessary without :anyone physically traveling to the machine. Network booting :also removes :the risk of having built a bad floppy which occurs frequently. : :Ease of use in a lab environment: :--------------------------------- :Our lab environment is also difficult to manage with the current set of :boot options. We run several variants of ONTAP in the lab :including one or :two versions that are currently in production for testing new :hardware and :configuration changes and many new versions for testing new :hardware and :new features. To manage this, we do a boot from floppy and :menu choice #4, :initialize all disks, to two NetApp hard drives for each OS. :This approach :has many disadvantages including a massive consumption of hard :drives in :our lab, the tedious and time consuming process of initialize :and setting :up a new filer, and the maintenance of configuration across several :different OS's on the same machine. : :With network booting we would not have to waste a pair of :disks ONTAP for :each new ONTAP version we test - a single pair will do. The disk :initialization process would only have to be executed once :instead of once :per ONTAP version. Finally, we could manage one set of :configuration files :for all different versions. : :Granted, some major OS versions have incompatible WAFL formats and :configuration files; however, maintaining a different set of :disks between :major releases is much easier than doing it between each :release, no matter :how minor. : :HOW: :==== :We'll leave the implementation up to Network Appliance; :however, we suggest :that they use standards based ways of doing this. Filer IP resolution :could be done using RARP/BOOTP and/or DHCP. The former are :probably easier :and are fairly standard for "in-firmware" address resolution. DHCP is :probably more code to write, but might be necessary for :NT-only customers. :For boot-file transmition, TFTP would work just fine and servers are :available for both UNIX and NT. :

1 0

RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply
by Benn, Paul 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

Could these directories have been created by Macintosh systems (real question: do they have multiple streams)? -----Original Message----- From: Clarke, John L. (CIS) [mailto:John_Clarke@bose.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:55 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply Mark, We are backing up a snapshot directory. We see random results. Depending on the run, between 6 and 15 subdirectories underneath a group directory are simply skipped. No errors reported. John -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [ mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com <mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com> ] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:15 PM To: 'James R Grinter'; Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply You should probably back up from a snapshot, which avoids open file issues. See Paul Benn's NT backup paper for an example of this: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html <http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html> Note particularly section 5. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: James R Grinter [ mailto:jrg@acm.org <mailto:jrg@acm.org> ] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:04 PM To: Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:40:56AM -0400, Clarke, John L. (CIS) wrote: > The only problem is that Omniback seems to skip about 25% of the data, with > no error messages or anything. Using the regular Backup software that comes > with NT works fine. People tell me (I have to take their word for it - I'm not familiar enough with the product) that Omniback doesn't like to back up files that are open, so anyone with their Outlook, Word, or Excel apps open with files being edited over night are probably being missed. That theory is pretty easy to test - see what files aren't being backed up. James.

1 0

RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply
by Muhlestein, Mark 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

The only thing that springs to mind is that you may be encountering an issue with snapshots of directories that are not in CIFS format, although I would think an error would be logged if that were it. See bug #15840. If that is the issue you can resolve it by setting an option to always create directories in CIFS format. If that is not the problem, we'll need to have you open a call with tech support and provide some packet traces and detailed information about your setup. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Clarke, John L. (CIS) [mailto:John_Clarke@bose.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:55 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply Mark, We are backing up a snapshot directory. We see random results. Depending on the run, between 6 and 15 subdirectories underneath a group directory are simply skipped. No errors reported. John -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [ mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com <mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com> ] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:15 PM To: 'James R Grinter'; Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply You should probably back up from a snapshot, which avoids open file issues. See Paul Benn's NT backup paper for an example of this: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html <http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html> Note particularly section 5. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: James R Grinter [ mailto:jrg@acm.org <mailto:jrg@acm.org> ] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:04 PM To: Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:40:56AM -0400, Clarke, John L. (CIS) wrote: > The only problem is that Omniback seems to skip about 25% of the data, with > no error messages or anything. Using the regular Backup software that comes > with NT works fine. People tell me (I have to take their word for it - I'm not familiar enough with the product) that Omniback doesn't like to back up files that are open, so anyone with their Outlook, Word, or Excel apps open with files being edited over night are probably being missed. That theory is pretty easy to test - see what files aren't being backed up. James.

1 0

RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply
by Clarke, John L. (CIS) 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

Mark, We are backing up a snapshot directory. We see random results. Depending on the run, between 6 and 15 subdirectories underneath a group directory are simply skipped. No errors reported. John -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:15 PM To: 'James R Grinter'; Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply You should probably back up from a snapshot, which avoids open file issues. See Paul Benn's NT backup paper for an example of this: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html Note particularly section 5. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: James R Grinter [mailto:jrg@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:04 PM To: Clarke, John L. (CIS) Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Using Omniback for CIFS backups -Reply On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:40:56AM -0400, Clarke, John L. (CIS) wrote: > The only problem is that Omniback seems to skip about 25% of the data, with > no error messages or anything. Using the regular Backup software that comes > with NT works fine. People tell me (I have to take their word for it - I'm not familiar enough with the product) that Omniback doesn't like to back up files that are open, so anyone with their Outlook, Word, or Excel apps open with files being edited over night are probably being missed. That theory is pretty easy to test - see what files aren't being backed up. James.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters